Roethlisberger for the HOF?

[Reaser]

Wow, you actually said verbatim "a larger sample size". So you are allowing that Dennis Dixon going 2-1 shouldn't derail Roethlisberger's HOF chances? Is there any context to what you are saying?

Verbatim: "a larger sample size in the span of time"
Context: Multiple QB's over 17-year period.

"So you are allowing that Dennis Dixon going 2-1 shouldn't derail Roethlisberger's HOF chances?"

Answer: Nothing was said about his HOF chances in relation to Dennis Dixon.
Context: Previous two posts never said anything about his HOF chances. Read the thread. I said Ben is a lock or if you will, I said verbatim: "[f]or what the PFHOF is, is he a lock? Yes."

Seemingly want to argue for the sake of arguing, and talking about Matt Cassel for some reason, and stuck on Dennis Dixon's 2-1 record. Notice how I put him in a group, a group isn't singular, though I know you have trouble with reading, reading comprehension and basic definitions. That's cool, I guess.

Regardless, not sure what I posted in the previous two posts that's incorrect. Was a response to "credit" and I went into the "how/why" the Steelers went to 3 SB's between 2005-2010 and why they haven't gone to a SB since. Merely gave my opinion on the how/why.

[Bryan]

Verbatim: "a larger sample size in the span of time"
Context: Multiple QB's over 17-year period.

I don't see the significance of Charlie Batch starting 9 games over 10 years as Roethlisberger's backup and going 6-3. If Batch had gone 3-6, would that make Roethlisberger's HOF argument stronger? If Batch went 9-0, would that preclude Roethlisberger from getting into Canton? Similarly, does Roethlisberger winning 68% of his games over 18 seasons have the same statistical significance as Dennis Dixon winning 67% of his games over 3 starts?

Its kind of weird to me that a person would start a critical posting about Roethlisberger with a commentary on his backup QBs, considering how durable Roethlisberger has been in his career. 2019 was the first time Roethlisberger suffered a significant injury, and the Steelers wound up 8-8. This year they went 12-4. I guess I never considered how much of Pittsburgh's success during Roethlisberger's tenure was attributable to the backup QBs.

Seemingly want to argue for the sake of arguing, and talking about Matt Cassel for some reason, and stuck on Dennis Dixon's 2-1 record. Notice how I put him in a group, a group isn't singular, though I know you have trouble with reading, reading comprehension and basic definitions. That's cool, I guess.

You'd have no choice but to put Dennis Dixon "in a group", as his NFL career was a cup of coffee. But I concede the point if you are saying "It's not just Dennis Dixon who went 2-1 in Roethlisberger's absence...Mike Vick also went 2-1!" Mind blown.

How does the backup QB "Dixon Group" records compare to Tom Brady's "Bledsoe/Cassell Group", John Unitas' "Shaw/Cuozzo/Morrall Group", or Bob Griese's "Morrall/Strock Group"? Is Roethlisberger unique in the (alleged) amount of success his backup QBs had? Is the amount of games won by Roethlisberger's backup QBs unique when compared to other elite QBs? If you can't answer those questions, then you have no point.

[Terry Baldshaw]

Make of this whatever you will, but Roethlisberger is the only QB to have three 500 yd passing games. The Steelers were victorious in all of them.

The argument regarding Ben's backup QBs is mostly silly. In 2008, Tom Brady was lost for the season in the first game yet the Patriots posted an 11-5 record. I can't recall the details but there was a Packers game where Rodgers didn't play and his backup threw for a ton of yardage. The fact that Ben has played on good teams his entire career obviously aids in his HOF chances (see Archie Manning for the opposite).

Ben was somewhat of the bad boy early in his career and it has affected his reputation. He has his share of detractors in Pittsburgh. Thankfully, he has settled down and become a committed Christian.

Finally, would this even be a discussion had Ben had the same regular season and post-season career with the Dallas Cowboys?

Checkmate.

[Reaser]

If Batch had gone 3-6, would that make Roethlisberger's HOF argument stronger?
If Batch went 9-0, would that preclude Roethlisberger from getting into Canton?

The reason you're so confused is because you still -despite me spelling it out for you- think it was a "HOF/Canton" argument. Twas not, as I've now repeatedly stated, and wish I could say it slower for you. I already said Ben is a lock for the HOF, in this very thread, and I provided very clearly the context of the/my two posts you evidently have issue with.

Which I shouldn't have to do since it's literally the second sentence of the original post you responded to.

Almost like the Steelers have a great organization and consistently are good, no matter what players they have.

Literally, the second sentence. Yet, you're completely confused. Even after I've explained it to you. Using facts to setup my statement that the "Steelers have a great organization and consistently are good." That's confusing, to you.

I guess I never considered how much of Pittsburgh's success during Roethlisberger's tenure was attributable to the backup QBs.

Also, something I never said. I merely pointed out, factually, that the Steelers won over half their games in his absence. Not as some great revelation and clearly wasn't the entirety of my post. Just a small part you're fixated on because ... you want to ... win? ... an argument ... on the internet? Very cool. Again, it was a small precursor leading into the point of the Steelers being an excellent organization, that wins.

You'd have no choice but to put Dennis Dixon "in a group", as his NFL career was a cup of coffee.

Congrats! I led you there and you finally figured it out. Dixon wasn't singled out by me, was listed as part of a group. You singled him out, again, to pull out a minuscule part of a post for whatever reason?

Is the amount of games won by Roethlisberger's backup QBs unique when compared to other elite QBs? If you can't answer those questions, then you have no point.

Again, it was a minuscule part of setting up/leading into saying that the Steelers are a great organization. Wasn't a HOF case, a comparison to any other team's QB's, or comparison of "elite QBs" or anything. Pretty standard and simple to follow. You keep trying to make it about something you want to make MY post about. The point, as previously and again explained, was that the Steelers win because they're a winning and great organization.

the same amount Matt Cassell had

"Bledsoe/Cassell Group"

You've misspelled Cassel twice now, making it no accident. That's a Pro Bowl QB and you can't even spell his name correctly?! (<-facetious)

Going to walk you there, since I know you have trouble with comprehension and understanding things, so stay with me. Had the roles been reversed -difference being I posted facts and you made an error- "Cassell" is something YOU would point out, nitpicking, fixate on and think that it discredits the entirety of anything else said in those posts. That is YOUR style of posting. Very twitter/instagram/facebook'esque of you. That is what you are doing now, with my posts. It's stupid. Also sad that it would be done here, where we should be able to talk about football history without someone taking out half a sentence to quote out-of-context (which you do), manufacturing and fabricating their own context of what someone else said to fit their argument (which you do), fixating on a minuscule portion of a post and point solely to argue/'win' an argument on the internet (which you do). These things are you, and you are sad.

I've explained the two posts -very clearly- that you have an issue with, for whatever reason. No need to explain further. If anything I said is factually incorrect, feel free to correct the errors. Otherwise, you've probably posted about Dennis Dixon and "Matt Cassell", enough.

[JWL]

Roethlisberger has longevity, championships, good stats, and the Steelers angle working for him. I don't have any doubts he will be in the PFHOF someday.

The fact that overall the Steelers have fared just as well as when he has not played as when he has played does not help his case. It does not necessarily hurt it, either. It helps guys like Joe Namath. Overall, the Jets were mediocre when Namath started. They were abysmal when Namath did not start.

[Bryan]

Literally, the second sentence. Yet, you're completely confused. Even after I've explained it to you. Using facts to setup my statement that the "Steelers have a great organization and consistently are good." That's confusing, to you.

Sorry that I made you lose your mind in this thread. Also, sorry for thinking that a thread titled "Roethlisberger for the HOF?" would be discussing Roethlisberger's HOF chances. Switching gears, your response illustrates why I am a proud member of PFRA. I love it when people have in-depth knowledge on topics. For instance, I did not realize that the Steelers have a great organization and are consistently good until your recently brought that up. The fact that Dennis Dixon went 2-1 for the Steelers is just further proof of this eye-opening fact.

I went back and re-read your initial posting, thinking that I may have missed something or completely misinterpreted your meaning.

Pretty sure the Steelers won 67% of the games Batch, Dixon and Vick started when Ben was out, which roughly equals the Steelers win % with Roethlisberger starting. Almost like the Steelers have a great organization and consistently are good, no matter what players they have. They even have a winning record when Rudolph has been the starting QB. Shoot, they even went .500 with Duck Hodges! at QB (and that doesn't count a game they won when he came off the bench.) Even have a winning record in games Landry Jones started, though if my memory is correct I'm pretty sure one of those Ben replaced him, then lit up the Browns. Regardless, not sure on implications like 'only Ben could have won these games.'

I still don't get it. You were criticizing Roethlisberger because his backups allegedly had the same win% (you completely ignored the records of other backup QBs like Tommy Maddox and Byron Leftwich, which isn't surprising). The criticism is statistically irrelevant and provides no historical context. Apparently you are prepared to die on this hill of lunacy, so I will concede whatever point you were trying to make...yeah, the Steelers are a good organization. Thanks for the insight.

Also, something I never said. I merely pointed out, factually, that the Steelers won over half their games in his absence.

Nope. You compared Roethlisberger's 68% win pct to the power trio of Batch/Dixon/Vick's 67% win pct, and concluded that you are not sure on implications like 'only Ben could have won these games'. If the Steelers won over half their games in Roethlisberger's absence (research forthcoming), then Roethlisberger's win % would still be superior. I'd rather have a QB who wins 68% of his games over 20 seasons than a QB collective that wins 51% of their games over a limited time frame.

[Brian wolf]

Haha ... yes the Steelers are a good organization, yet only Bradshaw and Big Ben won SBs, so Ben will get in ...

[Bryan]

Here is some Reaser-ch that I did on the hot button issue of the day...it will be my last posting in this thread. I guess this could be subtitled "or: why the Steelers are a good organization"....

2005: Maddox 0-2, Batch 2-0
2006: Batch 1-0
2007: Batch 0-1
2008: 0-0
2009: Dixon 0-1
2010: Dixon 2-0, Batch 1-0
2011: Batch 1-0
2012: Batch 1-1, Leftwich 0-1
2013: 0-0
2014: 0-0
2015: Vick 2-1, Jones 1-1
2016: Jones 1-1
2017: Jones 1-0
2018: 0-0
2019: Rudolph 5-3, Hodges 3-3
2020: Rudolph 0-1

21-16, win% of .567 (Roethlisberger win% .677)

[Reaser]

21-16, win% of .567 (Roethlisberger win% .677)

As you're want to do, with anyone, in your inability to read the entirety of a post and comprehend it, you were looking for an inaccuracy (a "gotcha") and couldn't find any in my post, because there wasn't anything inaccurate. So instead you fixated on Dennis Dixon and you even resorted to making-up a QB by the name of "Cassell", brilliant.

In the end, you reversed course to say what I already have said. So I guess, thanks for the backup. Working together.

Steelers won roughly 66% of their games over the 17-years he's been on the team, 68% with him as starting QB, obviously he's better than the more-than-a-couple backup QB's that have started games over 17-years, but the Steelers still win over half the games he's missed.

Which for the final time, was a minuscule part of an overall post, simple preface to saying "the Steelers are a great organization", which wasn't a criticism or "HOF case" statement since I already previously posted that Ben is a lock for the HOF.

Simply a post about "credit" for the Steelers being good (starts with the organization being good) -- which posts were giving him too much credit (their defense in the SB appearance seasons) and others weren't giving him enough credit, which I also said. For you, it was all about Dennis Dixon and "Matt Cassell", weird.

Definitely Thompson, who I believe deserves HOF consideration. Like Griese, he took his team to three consecutive championship games, utilizing his best running back, while winning too and was one of the first successful T-Formation QBs ... he didnt have an Earl Morrall winning ten straight games for him as well.

Uh oh. Our new friend Brian Wolf -who has injected some life into our stagnant forum- made this comment in another thread. Had the gall to point out Tommy Thompson didn't have Earl Morrall winning games for his team like Bob Griese did. Hopefully "Bryan" (does this guy even know how to spell his own name?) doesn't see it. Surely will take it out of context and start making up his own realities, while making up fictional players probably, too. We know he's sensitive when it comes to any mention of backup QB's winning games.

[JohnH19]

I dont believe Romo, Rivers, E Manning, Ryan, Newton or Stafford make it ...

Welcome to the forum, Brian.
Logically speaking, Rivers and Eli are the only two that have a snowball’s chance of getting in and I’m not sold on either one.